Deep learning has started to revolutionize several different industries, and the applications of these methods in medicine are now becoming more commonplace. This study focuses on investigating the feasibility of tracking patients and clinical staff wearing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) tags in a radiation oncology clinic using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The performance of these networks was compared to relative received signal strength indicator (RSSI) thresholding and triangulation. By utilizing temporal information, a combined CNN+ANN network was capable of correctly identifying the location of the BLE tag with an accuracy of 99.9%. It outperformed a CNN model (accuracy = 94%), a thresholding model employing majority voting (accuracy = 95%), and a triangulation classifier utilizing majority voting (accuracy = 95%). Future studies will seek to deploy this affordable real time location system in hospitals to improve clinical workflow, efficiency, and patient safety.
With the advancement of treatment modalities in radiation therapy for cancer patients, outcomes have improved, but at the cost of increased treatment plan complexity and planning time. The accurate prediction of dose distributions would alleviate this issue by guiding clinical plan optimization to save time and maintain high quality plans. We have modified a convolutional deep network model, U-net (originally designed for segmentation purposes), for predicting dose from patient image contours of the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). We show that, as an example, we are able to accurately predict the dose of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer patients, where the average Dice similarity coefficient is 0.91 when comparing the predicted vs. true isodose volumes between 0% and 100% of the prescription dose. The average value of the absolute differences in [max, mean] dose is found to be under 5% of the prescription dose, specifically for each structure is [1.80%, 1.03%](PTV), [1.94%, 4.22%](Bladder), [1.80%, 0.48%](Body), [3.87%, 1.79%](L Femoral Head), [5.07%, 2.55%](R Femoral Head), and [1.26%, 1.62%](Rectum) of the prescription dose. We thus managed to map a desired radiation dose distribution from a patient's PTV and OAR contours. As an additional advantage, relatively little data was used in the techniques and models described in this paper.